An Efficiency Argument for the Guaranteed Income
This paper uses what could be called a multi-school approach to poverty policy, asking the following question: Given the many proposed causes for poverty, and the conflicting theories about how potential solutions would work, what conclusions can we draw about policy? This paper concludes that the Guaranteed Income is the most efficient and comprehensive policy to address poverty.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- J. MUYSKENS & C. de Neubourg, 1986. "Introduction," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 1986031, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
- William J. Baumol & Edward N. Wolff, 1996.
"Protracted Frictional Unemployment as a Heavy Cost of Technical Progress,"
Economics Working Paper Archive
wp_179, Levy Economics Institute.
- William J. Baumol & Edward N. Wolff, 1998. "Protacted Frictional Unemployment as a Heavy Cost of Technical Progress," Macroeconomics 9803001, EconWPA.
- Marlene Kim, 1997. "The Working Poor: Lousy Jobs or Lazy Workers?," Macroeconomics 9712002, EconWPA.
- Marlene Kim, 1997. "The Working Poor: Lousy Jobs or Lazy Workers?," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_194, Levy Economics Institute. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)